Cartoon posted:

That's a blatant misrepresentation.

Cyclists in Copenhagen aren't required to wear helmets

Do not lead to:


Therefore if cycle helmets were mandatory in Copenhagen there would be many fewer cyclists

Solemn Sloth posted:

and I just realised I did the dane/dutch thing gently caress

Solemn Sloth posted:

put bollards up at every intersection overnight check mate car havers

Jumpingmanjim posted:

Jeez they still do the national anthem in assembly? I never sung along all year round.

And in any case no one could describe the national anthem as joyous, unless it's the Radiohead version.

hooman posted:

To me the entirety of the bike helmets thing is a cost benefit analysis.

On the issue of bike helmets you have two competing needs, the first is safety the second is participation.

If we take as read that helmets increase safety and decrease participation (though I'm sure someone will argue with both of these) we have to look at the weight of the costs and the benefits.

Head injuries are hosed, in terms of personal cost and community cost. Reducing head injuries by any appreciable amount is well worth it.
Cycling rates are low, increasing cycling rates would help with transportation, infrastructure usage, and community health.
The question is then as follows: Are we willing to make the trade of head injuries as a result of no helmets in exchange for an increasing the number of cyclists by the amount of people who do not cycle due to helmet laws.

I see the amount of people who do not cycle anywhere in our cities due to helmet laws as being very low. This may be different in copenhagen where there is infrastructure to support it but the majority of people who don't cycle don't do it not because "I hate helmets" but because of "I'm gonna loving die" or "It's really loving far". So to me the cost of head injuries is greater than the benefit of increased cyclists because I see the number of people by which cycling participation increasing as being very small.

If we had high density cities, with decentralised business districts, good bicycle infrastructure and safety such that not requiring helmets would result in a massive upswing in bicycle usage, sure, I can see the reason for not having mandatory helmets. Since we have loving none of that I don't see the loving point except to let idiots who are worried about their hair or are lazy get head injured and be a drain on the rest of us.

Don Dongington posted:

One of the newer buildings up there on Lord st in East Perth has a bit of that going on, so perhaps it's a sign of things to come.

On the subject of stupid town planning though, stupidest thing I've seen recently:

http://www.thevillageatwellard.com.au/wellard/media/PDFs/PVIL0212_Staging_and_Release_Plan_A3_WEB.pdf

So this is the estate I live in, right? It's won numerous awards for innovation in town planning etc. It's not the worst setup, having everything in the middle there with the train station makes it pretty convenient for non-car-havers.

Thing is, all the pink and blue bits have been zoned for apartments. Firstly I question who the gently caress would want to move 45-50 mins drive from the city to live in an apartment? I doubt they're even that cheap. I feel that it would have made a lot more sense to zone that area as office or commercial space, to create job opportunities in the local area. Right now, you can basically do everything BUT work without leaving the village area.

I feel like the future for little suburban hubs like this could be pretty bright, if people would get away from the arse-backwards idea that you can only do office work in the city, or one of the office parks NEAR the city. I think Scott Ludlam addressed this in his Perth 2.0 idea.

lua posted:

I think the problem could be beyond bollards

hooman posted:

To me the entirety of the bike helmets thing is a cost benefit analysis.

Konomex posted:

Holycow. You live near me.

They're doing the 5 storey apartment thing in bassendean and it looks awesome. I really wish they'd do more of it around and crunch down the urban sprawl. I live here because it's the cheapest place I could find within a set distance of my work and friends. This city is an endless hell scape of suburbs.

Negligent posted:

helmets are cool and good
- darth vader

Don Dongington posted:

On the subject of stupid town planning though, stupidest thing I've seen recently:

http://www.thevillageatwellard.com.au/wellard/media/PDFs/PVIL0212_Staging_and_Release_Plan_A3_WEB.pdf

So this is the estate I live in, right? It's won numerous awards for innovation in town planning etc. It's not the worst setup, having everything in the middle there with the train station makes it pretty convenient for non-car-havers.

Thing is, all the pink and blue bits have been zoned for apartments. Firstly I question who the gently caress would want to move 45-50 mins drive from the city to live in an apartment? I doubt they're even that cheap. I feel that it would have made a lot more sense to zone that area as office or commercial space, to create job opportunities in the local area. Right now, you can basically do everything BUT work without leaving the village area.

JBark posted:

Kommando posted:

Mandatory helmet laws hurt bicycle sharing schemes as a casual user, of which many are, will not be carrying a helmet around in case they happen to use a bike share

Mad Katter posted:

At the risk of posting 5000 times on this page, I see removing mandatory helmet laws as an important incremental change to make. There's no real reason not to

Birb Katter posted:

Albo is leaving Grayndler to become Greener pastures and heading to Barton.

Solemn Sloth posted:

Just read this on the age, it's a shiite month of mourning so a school allowed children to leave during the national anthem as they are not supposed to take part in anything joyful such as music. Some white as gently caress useless old grandmother is frothing at the mouth and senator lambie is revving up her engines too. The victorian education department appears to be standing behind the school and hopefully continues doing so.

EvilElmo posted:

That doesn't sound right. Barton being a marginal seat with a stronger conservative feel to it.

Australia First Reporting posted:

Labor's Chris Bowen, Anthony Albanese, Joel Fitzgibbon eye new seats

Three federal Labor frontbenchers are looking to switch seats before the next federal election as a product of widespread upheaval caused by the redistribution of electorates in NSW.

Shadow treasurer Chris Bowen, shadow infrastructure minister Anthony Albanese and shadow agriculture minister Joel Fitzgibbon are all eyeing neighbouring seats after a draft decision of the Australian Electoral Commission to abolish Mr Fitzgibbon's Hunter Valley seat and make significant changes to the boundaries of other electorates across the state.

Mr Bowen's western Sydney seat of McMahon has been rendered marginal and approaches have been made to Chris Hayes, who holds the neighbouring seat of Fowler, to move aside.

Mr Hayes is believed to be reluctant to shift, more so given he significantly improved Labor's hold on Fowler at the last election in the face of a national swing against the ALP.

Also, Mr Hayes was forced to shift from Werriwa to Fowler before the 2010 election to make way for Laurie Ferguson who lost his seat in the last NSW redistribution. Sources said Mr Ferguson is telling colleagues he will retire at the next election but the Left controls his seat and Mr Hayes, from the Right, would not be able to move back.

Further complicating matters is that the NSW branch of the Health Services Union is looking to reaffiliate with Labor and the Right faction. Mr Hayes' brother, Gerard, is the union's state secretary and poor treatment of his brother may jeopardise the reaffiliation and impact the Right's numbers.

ALBANESE NOW LIVES IN BARTON

Closer to the city, Mr Albanese, who holds the inner-western, Sydney seat of Grayndler, now has his home and office in the neighbouring seat of Barton after the draft redistribution.

Barton had been previously held by Labor's Robert McClelland but fell to the Liberal's Nickolas Varvaris at the 2013 election.

The redistribution has rendered it a notional Labor seat. Grayndler is still a relatively safe Labor seat as well and Mr Albanese has the numbers in the branches of both electorates to win pre-selection.

But given he now lives in Barton, he, like others, is awaiting the outcome of the AEC's final decision on the redistribution due in February. However, people are preparing to move in anticipation that the final redistribution will not change much, if at all, from the draft.

In the Hunter Valley, Mr Fitzgibbon's seat of Hunter was abolished and the name given to the nearby seat of Charlton, held by Labor's Pat Conroy. Under a deal being pushed by Mr Fitzgibbon and his Right faction, Mr Fitzgibbon would move into Mr Conroy's seat and Mr Conroy would shift to the neighbouring seat of Shortland, held by Labor's Jill Hall. Although Ms Hall has made no such announcement, sources say she is expected to retire at the next election.

Sources said Mr Conroy is resisting moving. He cancelled an overseas trip on the weekend to stay home and sort the matter out. He believes Mr Fitzgibbon should move to nearby Paterson. It is held by Liberal MP Bob Baldwin but has become marginal after the redistribution.

However, Mr Conroy, from the Left, could agree to make way for Mr Fitzgibbon and move to Shortland, but only if the Right agrees to play clean and not try to disrupt Mr Albanese moving to Barton.

While Mr Albanese has the numbers to win pre-selection in Barton and does not intend to be part of any deal, one source warned the Right could "kick up a stink" in the build-up to the election.

One MP, unimpressed with the musical chairs, said it was a bad sign for people to be bailing out of marginal seats, especially in Western Sydney, just because Malcolm Turnbull replaced Tony Abbott.

BBJoey posted:

I've read arguments that mandatory bike helmet laws can actually have a negative affect on bike safety, because although they decrease the likelihood of sustaining a significant injury in a crash, they increase the likelihood of a crash occurring in the first place because bike riders who wear helmets behave more aggressively, as do car drivers who overtake helmet-wearing cyclists. I've no idea whether that's true or not but due to the incredible complexity of the situation there's basically no way to test whether any given hypothesis is true.

Anidav posted:

Albo would also be moving because spill soon and he would hate to become leader only to lose to a green.

Birdstrike posted:

Huh? Redistribution is helping Albo against the Greens because it's taking away the strongest Green area in his electorate around Newtown and giving him the red booths of Balmain/Rozelle.

hooman posted:

There are some ways based on data analysis and ratios.

https://theconversation.com/putting-a-lid-on-the-debate-mandatory-helmet-laws-reduce-head-injuries-1979

That's one there. I'll have a look to see if I can see any of the evidence of increased non head injury crashed associated with helmets. I have see some studies about headgear in rugby which has a correlated an injury rate with wearing headgear/pads, but I don't know about bicycles.

EDIT: Actually seems like there's quite a bit https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/safety-and-road-rules/cyclist-safety/wearing-a-bicycle-helmet